Military effects on a countries ability to be a global superpower

Even though it has come to a point where internet, the verbal and unreal world, has taken over the reality, military still has a large impact on a country's ability to be a global superpower.
Nowadays, most people live in the online world, rather than the real, physical world. People forget about their life on the earth and spend majority of their daily hours on facebook, online games, tumbler, youtube, and all other sorts of things on the internet. However, this doesn't change our perspective towards the physical "fear." Physical harm, physical environment, and other physical aspects that directly affect us, of course, has greater impact on us than a comment on facebook or an email. Physical fear will never change for the human kind, as that is what decides whether we are safe or hurt, alive or dead.
Now, when weapons are so developed and destruction has become so easy, the idea of the Third World War is, indeed, fearful. And it would be very easy for even a small conflict between two countries to end up to be a worldwide warfare since most of the countries are associated with each other in some way or the other as communication has become very easy. And counting for the fact that people are fearful of these issues, which could kill them or injure them horribly and leave them in pain, we know that military power will always remain a threat and therefore account for a part in being a superpower. A bigger military, obviously, would mean a bigger threat and better ability to destroy, which will help a country to become more superior and authoritative than the other. It's the concept of bullying with size or physical force.
Recently, North Korea has declared a threat on South Korea and left the world in horror and concern. The reason this was such a big deal was because if a war breaks out, it's not only South Korea that gets involved but the US that helped South Korea in the previous war against the North, and China that supports North Korea as communists. If US and China joins in - the two biggest (in all aspects) countries on this planet - then the rest of the world will probably be affected or involved as well. And everyone dies.
North Korea, other than militarily, is probably the most inferior country in the world. It has horrible economy, government, and reputation. It probably would have been wiped out by now, if it wasn't for their possession of nuclear bomb and a very advanced military. That's what leaves them as a threat and that's what sustains them. They are powerful. No one can touch them. Even though it is a horrible, loser country to be born in, North Korea still holds some power all due to its military. This proves that military contributes quite a lot to being a powerful country, and US is not able to sneak in with their excuse of justice, with an invisible threat of force and power, like into Afghanistan.
Physical power will always take up a great part in a human's life, because that's what we are founded on, and military will always take up a great part in a country's superiority.

Essay outline

Name: Yesua Jeon                                                                                    

Individual Research title: The most dependable and realistically possible alternative energy source

What question do I want to ask? Which alternative energy resource can we rely upon the most? Which energy resource can we actually use in the place of coal, when we run out of coal? Which energy is most practical – apart from being the most green, because the issue is about if we have enough energy since we cannot do anything without energy and we anyway pollute the world through many other ways.

Where will I find the information to answer my questions? Websites of big alternative energy source industries, environmentalist websites, governmental websites, personal blogs (they seem to have a lot to say, but of course keeping in mind the bias), news articles, UN (maybe?), online magazines like national geographic, etc.

How will I analyse the information? Since it’s a worldwide issue, approach the topic from different points of view, considering all the bias, and draw a conclusion from majority and research the facts and stats. Be tolerant. Also, compare all the information and check for each one’s reliability.

How will I identify and evaluate possible scenarios? Look at the information and with the information I gathered draw to a conclusion.

Possible scenarios: From what I have learned so far, I think solar energy is the best. Even though it might be the most expensive in manufacturing and installing, after the installation it’s pretty much free according to Srikar’s presentation and it doesn’t cause any sort of pollution. It just absorbs the sunlight and converts it into energy quietly and effectively. Also sun is pretty common in places where it is, which is in most of the places, so I don’t think we need to worry about the amount of sunlight and its abundance. It doesn’t even take up any space. We can put it on roof tops and store the energy. Other resources create too much fuss.

Global perspective #3

Each student needs to find an article on food security and analyse it to find the contention, bias and purpose.

article:

Food distribution, not shortage to blame for India's food insecurity

The contention of this article is to point out the failure of food distribution that results to food insecurity, not lack of food. It also compares the directly contrasting situations in India and America, where in India 62% is starving and in America 62% obese. The journalist of course is not supposed to be biased, but we can see that he is siding with the criticism of the government and the country's corruption that allows "320 million people" to go hungry when they have "a surplus of 82.3 million tonnes of crops," by seeing that he only interviewed one person, food and trade policy analyst, and entirely writes from his point of view. The whole argument of this article lies in the title itself as you can see. The purpose of this article is to speak out for the people, and of the unfortunate reality in India, and to make everyone aware of India's abundance in food that that doesn't correlate with satisfied stomachs.

Global perspective #2

Write and post a comparison on what food insecurity means to countries like USA and the UK against countries like India and Pakistan.

Identify the Bias, purpose (informative, persuasive, etc), main contention of the writer (what is their argument), evidence and discrepancies between ‘A further attack on the PDS’ and ‘fighting for food security’. Post these ideas and either bring a computer into class with you on Monday or print out your analysis so we can work on these in class.

The two articles pretty much have the same argument. They both criticize the corruption and failure of the Indian government to reduce food insecurity in India. The bias of the second (UK) article was against the Indian government, stating that the "debate has shifted from starvation and subsistence to dignity and justice." It describes the "scandal of the country bursting at the seams with 60m tonnes of stored food grains as starvation, death and migration afflicted six states." The article from the Frontline suggests similar, stating that "while more than 500 million people are undernourished and many more are vulnerable to food insecurity, 45.5 million tonnes of foodgrains are being held by the Government of India." However, being a magazine produced from the publishers of The Hindu, it stands more on the local citizen's side and fights from the local perspective. The Guardian only revolves around the government of India, not the individual residents. The Guardian states the problems, the solutions, and the improvements made over the past years, whereas Frontline gives massive statistics and numbers, and also unfamiliar terms such as APL, BPL, TPDS, etc. Both of them are pretty informative, as they state the facts and give information on this issue, but also somewhat persuasive on their indirect attack on India's corruption. Both of the writers are Indians, who obviously would be concerned about their own country's conflicts and which portray their contention to publicize this topic, give spotlight on this topic, draw people's attention, and educate everyone of the problems and corruptions that are taking place in India. Since the first article was written in 2001, which is when the scandal happened according to the second article that was written in 2012, the second article mention the actions taken, and the progress, not failing to include more improvements to be made. The first article just states the situation and criticizes faults in the system of public distribution. The first article is very obscure. Not only there are many errors in the article, but the English is poor with continuous repetition of the same words and a not very smooth flow of the sentences. 

Global perspective #1

Food security & poverty/hunger
-who is affected?
-how many are affected?
-is this a major problem
-what are some solutions?

Anyone who starves is affected by this worldwide issue. Specifically, the people who cannot afford food or are in situations of food scarcity are all who are affected. As I remember someone telling me, over 50% of the world population is suffering from poverty. The world "we" (that is, anyone who is be able to read this with a proper house, computer, and internet access) are living in, is just the beautiful half of the world. Of course this is a major problem! People are dying from starvation when in some parts of the country, people are suffering from obesity and trying to prevent food wastage. Can you believe that? People are talking about food wastage when some are not even getting any at all. This is certainly a big problem. It's messed up. The solution is to better manage food distribution all around the world because there certainly is enough food to feed everyone on earth. We must stop indulging in so much luxury. Instead of buying a new car, which is very unnecessary, you could help the African kids. The whole system needs to change. The Africans should be provided with foods of equal quality and equal abundancy as those we find in North America or Europe. It's not fair that some people get enough food - enough to waste by truckloads - while some don't even have drinking water.

Video response
1. To encourage people to give
2. People need physical nutrition and love. Therefore, we who have these, should give those who don't already. As Krishnan states, "the ultimate purpose of life is to give." Also he believes that we should do so because "everybody's the same."
3. I do agree with the fact that we should give the needy. However, I wouldn't say that would change the world. It won't put an end to world hunger. It's just nice to give.
4. It's a story.

Central argument: Polite terms such as "thank you" or "you're welcome" are starting to disappear from our lives and are replaced with other terms, as people are becoming more casual and maybe even rude.

The terms we use did change over time. It's always been changing. The terms I used over the mere 17 years of my life changed immensely. As some famous saying said, "The only constant in this world is change," or something of that context.

That is very true. We humans always change. The trend will never stay the same. New concepts or ideas will be introduced, and some of them will become viral, changing our way of living.

Same with what we say. Words such as "dope" referred to drugs. But now, somehow, it has changed its meaning to be "cool." Who, in the 20th century, would have ever even imagined that the word "sick" would be transformed to mean something like "cool," or "nice." That doesn't even make any sense. And now we use "damn" as "very," and it's not even a swear word anymore. We say it in front of the teachers.

However, just because what we say changes, doesn't mean what we mean changes too. We use words according to their meanings, and no matter how rude it might seem to uncreative and grumpy adults, if it means the same thing then I don't think there is any harm in it. These old men be flipping 'bout it, but we ain't care cuz we still be dope! As I said, if it means the same, there shouldn't be a problem. It's like "fuck." The word itself doesn't hold any value. It's the fact that humans have decided to give it a bad meaning that made it bad-ass. The meaning is important. Therefore if we say "damn" with the meaning of "very," we won't get in trouble even if we are with the principal. However, if we use it as damn "damn," as in "damn it," the situation might differ. So if we say "what up, dawg~" instead of "how are you, my friend," but still mean the same thing, then it is the same thin! No being rude or rebellious or anything like that. Adults gotta chill out in life and realize the world is changing. (Gasp! Really?) I believe it's about time we use our ghetto-child language with adults too now. Lol. I'm just joking, that was a bit too far. Anyways, I'm just saying that we should tolerate the seemingly-rude-but-meaning-the-same terms. And I'm not saying we should tolerate the seemingly-rude-and-meaning-the-rude terms. We should place consequences on those hipster wannabe immature kids who dare try to be playing with old men. No one messes with age. No one f*** around with the "experienced." However, I believe the world is not as bad as to have all these people using the new, modern, reformed terms  to be rude. So I hope everyone just cope with it and live with it. Peace (lol). [I don't really talk like this, I don't want to, and I wouldn't like to. I just do this for the sake of my own entertainment of making fun of the "cool guys" that actually think it's cool to talk like this. Just so you know I'm not a psychopathic weirdilistic creep. (:]

Basically, I'm kinda agreeing with only the last paragraph of the article. "What won't change ... is the importance of acknowledging appreciation expressed." The meaning is important, not the (physical seemingageof the) words. "... if the appreciation is expressed in a genuine manner, I do not see it as a loss of courtesy." True that. If we mean it, even though our words might sound bit more shallow or rude, it should be fine.
The only conflict is, will others be cool enough to understand that we mean the same?

Why We Like What We Like

Central argument: We like what we like, obviously with the affect of what we physically sense with our five-senses, but mostly due to our mindset; due to our perception and thinking that something is likeable.

It indeed depends on our belief that something is good. The taste of the food does matter. when we come across a new food, we probably judge its taste by our tongue. However, whether we like that food or not, as the author argues and as I agree with him, depends wholly on our brain. It depends on whether we decide that it's good or not, whether we decide to like it or not.

I'm sure this is true with everyone that some of the things we like are urged by popular choice. People pretensiously like something just because many others say it's good. For example, I used to hate steak. The thick, stuffed, gross big chunk of cow was certainly overrated. I still didn't receive an answer why people think so highly of it, even when I had it in the most popular steak place, but I just pretended that it is amazing just because everyone else insisted so. Well, now I really do like meat and can't live without it, and this is not a perception affected by others.

A great example from the blog is holding hands with someone. It doesn't really matter what kind of hand it is, does it? It doesn't matter how the other person's hand feels on your hands. It depends on your brain whether to decide to like it or not. If you hold hands with someone you like, you like it. That's up to your brain. However, these are natural things. The problem in the real-life situation emerges when people are fake with what they like, just following the majority. Like the starting example of the article. People would act like gourmet liver pate is some amazing food, and dog food is gross, even though the scientific research reveals that most people don't even notice the difference between the two when they are similarly served with the "right sort of garnish." Same with my steak example, I think it gradually turns into a conflict when the fakeness goes over the line. It is certainly a problem in our world. Being unique, different, truthful to oneself, and standing up for oneself are denied because the world wants you to follow them. Follow their decision of what you should like, not your own honest feelings. If those dishes taste the same, why don't we just admit dog food tastes good or gourmet liver pate sucks? I don't get it.

As time goes by, the interruption of "attitudes and expectations" is increasing. In today's world, where people care so much about what others would think, it is all about the mindset of liking something - not your actual feelings of liking something by its goodness. You can't like something that others would find silly. Because from that day on, you would become an outcast.

If Chuck Norris said poop is tasty, I bet half the world would say the same. The author is true when he says, "It's hard to avoid the conclusion that we are frauds and fakes." We care so fucking much about our reputation that we start becoming fake. We pretend to like what we don't fucking like just to be cool. Just to follow the stupid crowd. Are you - an individual - afraid of them? When facing our own ego problems, there are no families or friends anymore. It's all about me, myself. What the hell is the world up to? Where is this craphole heading? We decide our friends according to our own fucking selfish reaosns. I have friends, thank goodness, because I'm good at drawing and dancing. That's all people care about. These fake-ass motherfucking bitches can't be true to themselves for once. I'm a fake-ass motherfucking bitch too. I won't blame everything on the individuals though, because Woodstock is turning people like that. The environment is threatening them with the terror of being an outcast that they should follow everyone else pretensiously. What the fuck!? The system is taking over our lives, and we are, like douchebags, following the system. Get out of there, man. Please. Let's get out and enjoy.

The rise of "Awesome" (An advanced apology for the last paragraph. Ran out of materials to write because my point is simple and short and strong unlike these newb writers'. I couldn't extend my point any further.)

Central Argument: The meaning of the word "awesome," along with many other words, has deteriorated because of its over-usage and undermination of its value.

Awesome has certainly demoted. Just because it sounds better, even though they probably realize that it means more than "good" or "nice," people replace their shallow compliments with this word. They know it's worth more, but just use it where it means less than it means because it's fun to say it. It's also easy to say unlike "great" or "fantastic," where there are the "r"s and "f"s that Asians have difficulty pronouncing. (Well, not me.)

The author is right. People now use awesome for anything they find merely "good." They use "awesome" instead of any other vocabularies that stand for something acceptable. People mistake themselves to be cool if they use this word, which they were until it was so over-dosed and abused. Wannabes spoiled it.

"Awe" along with "some" would literally mean something that's worth to be awed at. "Awe" is defined as an emotion that combines dread, veneration, and wonder that is inspired by authority or by the sacred or sublime (Merriam-Webster dictionary). It is about at the level of the terms, "shock," "mind-blowing," etc. So awesome would be an adjective most probably only suitable for God, like how the article's examples of the Bible suggest. However, now it doesn't even reach the depth in meaning of "amazing" or "fantastic." "Awesome" has just become a casual replacement for "good," "fair," or "nice." 

Awesome is said and written everywhere. It is too common now. It is indeed a "worn-out phrase." And due to the lightness people use it with and their lack of responsibility and respect for this word, it has degraded to a common vocab. 

"Hey, we can go to chardukan today." 

"Awesome!"

No, of course being able to go to chardukan is not something that is "awe-some." You don't awe at the 'majestic grace' of the opportunity to have a 'luxurious five-star dinner' at the 'monumental, four beautifully furnished' shops. What the heck is wrong with you?

But I'm not necessarily saying I don't do that...

Well, it's not my fault for using awesome so casually like other people. The society mind-controlled me. They influenced me. Everyone used it so lightly, so I gave it a try too. And it felt beautiful. It was addictive like tapping someone on the back and acting like I didn't do it, or standing right behind someone without them realizing and singing "I'm a creep" by Radiohead to creep them out, or orange juice. So now I became one of the most "awesome"-using person in the entire globe. But this article reminded me, reached my heart, and convinced me about the destruction of the importance of this awe-some word. I was awestruck by the actual definition of "awesome" which I never thought of thinking about before I came across this article. And now I repent and agree with the author. Now I'll stand for the rights of "awesome." It did lose its meaning and I'm going to change it back. I'll make a change. I'm a seed of change. People, let us stop abusing "awesome" and start protecting its awesomeness. Let's be awed at the word "awesome." Is it too late? No, it's never too late. We can make this world a better place. (Sorry, I went a bit too far. I was getting over-emotional. I really want to save this poor little vocaby by reaching out to it and respecting its adorableness.)

What does it mean to be cool?

The author argues that being cool, which originates from the idea of remaining calm even under stress that has eventually transformed into a practiced behavioral attitude by black people, means being a winner without trying too hard to win, without winning everything, and winning unpredictably. He also says living in a constant of alienation because you can't revel in total control or total detachment but have to bring forward unusual constellations of ideas and actions. Cool is a paradoxical fusion of submission and subversion. The author is acting like a dick and making everything so complicated. He thinks he is damn smart.

The author has all his history of "cool" and all this useless bull-crap of his philosophy on what the heck it really means to be "cool," but I don't give a damn about his argument. He failed miserably in convincing, or at least getting his point straight, because it is annoyingly long and unnecessarily complex. I read the whole thing through, some sentences even several times if that's what it took me to see what he was saying, yet didn't quite understand what his actual message was. I don't blame myself because I could understand paragraphs from AP English exam. The only sentence I really got was the "paradoxical fusion of submission and subversion" that my English teacher so kindly explained in details. I do understand parts of the article but I don't see the whole point - the main argument; what he is trying to communicate through this. So what does it really mean to be cool? And after all, I think his definition of "cool" that the rest of the world uses and think of as, is extremely wrong. I disagree with him. Nevertheless, he succeeds in showing the example of "uncool."

Being cool basically means being awesome - being someone that others want to be like; being chill, funny, happy, yet powerful, thoughtful, deep, understanding, skillful, critical, solemn, etc. However, these are only the characteristics that I think are required for one to be cool. It depends on the individuals' thoughts and experiences that have developed their views of being cool. The views of the world, other people, and God. These are all the parts that contribute to building up the conclusion for oneself if something is cool or not. Not just about being cool, but for every single question in life. The answer depends on the education, experience, and mindset of each individual.

There is no one answer to the question, "what does it mean to be cool?" And the author is probably nor correct because his silly little philosophy can't beat the belief of majority. Has Darwin's theory of Evolution disproved God's creation of humans as humans? There still are majority that believe that God created humans as humans. Has the Big Bang theory changed people's belief of God's creation? No. As so, most people believe being cool has something to do with how amazingly one deals with certain situations. How so many people like him/her. How awesome he/she is. Not how you paradoxically submit and subverse. People already have developed their own idea of what it means to be cool. Everyone probably thinks slightly differently of cool, but the main idea would be something like "being cool = awesome."

To end with, the ultimate idea of "you" being cool, from my analysis and years of complicated calculations of treads of thoughtful thoughts and considerations, is when someone admits you are cool, despite all the disgusting human traits of ego, selfishness, desperation for attention, jealousy, hatred, etc. Then you know that you are really cool. Or, not giving a damn about it and living your life as it is and as yourself.

Marriage and Single Life

I, the most tolerable of all beings that stand on two feet - including some weird dogs that do so as well - hath not known the foolishest of the foolishest humans that could ever possibly turn this indeed a very appealing topic for teenagers into a fearsome cause of brain seizure. 

The central argument of the author, I think, is that one should marry to reproduce to contribute to the future times and also to be better-hearted and in control with the responsibility of a family to feed, where as a single life wanders in freedom with self-pleasure and humor, and doesn't have to worry about the financial burden of a family, which could possibly help the single ones to be more concerned towards the others and do great things. 

A human, as God has created, must marry. Marriage is the essential element of life. A single might survive, but with loneliness and dearest heart for a partner all along. And I certainly have seen some people that "chose" to be alone, but I could also see the discontent in their eyes. Male and female are meant to be together, with the bond of love between themselves, because they fit just like puzzle pieces. (Yeah, I meant both spiritually and physically.) 

I want to marry right now. I want a woman of my own. Not like any random girl that I'm attracted to or the cutest girl in school, but a faithful, understanding soul-mate that I would pick so pickily and carefully. A woman I would never want to slap across the face, punch right on the nose, or rip open and shatter every bone in the body. I'm joking, but at least a woman that wouldn't make me get sick of her. 

As so, I'm already dreaming about my future wife. Guys need wives to control them from anger, drinking, smoking, killing, raping, etc, and girls need husbands to keep them in the kitchen, all in control. We dearly need each other, don't we, my brothers and sisters? No one chooses not to marry. They "choose" not to marry because they couldn't.

A single man won't have wealth. Trust me on this. It's not that they are single that they have wealth that were spared from wife and kids. It's that they have financial problems that they don't have a wife. Who would marry a broke loser? No one. And even if a single man is rich, does he contribute a lot to the society? No! He uses it up all by himself drinking and smoking because he feels like his life sucks that he doesn't have a partner, and start self-sympathizing that would only increase his hopelessness and loneliness which would result to emotional disorder that might also affect mental disorder and give hard times to others as well and ultimately just end up being a useless, lonely, desperate douche. Then after that, because he feels so bad about himself, he'll start going to casinos where he will lose all his money and get all depressed and finally hang himself. Single life is not a happy life. Single life is no good. My math teacher has problems with anger-management just because he can't get married. Also he acts like a pedophile with female students.

My opinion is, marriage is amazing - I want to get married right now so damn freaking really extremely very bad - and single life sucks it's own cock. (It does make sense!) 

Thinking vs. Feeling: The Psychology of Advertising

The author doesn't really have a straight-forward central argument. Instead, he pulls different researches into his article to argue from many sides, but never draws conclusion that one is better than the other. So his central argument basically is: whether an advertisement is good or not depends on varying factors (target audience, situation, product, etc), and it is yet to be found which type - thinking or feeling, rational or irrational - of advertisements successfully appeal to the audience.
I say, it depends on the product. Even if Spice (a local Indian company) mobile phones come up with the best ad and iPhone doesn't advertise at all, people are still going to buy iPhone. That is because the ethos for iPhone has become too big to beat because it is actually that good. And even if they buy a Spice phone, they will still know that iPhone is better, and would have bought it if they could. Advertisements depend on the product.
Think back to the most memorable or funny ad you have ever seen in your life. Now answer, do you own that product? The answer is no. Just because the ad is good doesn't mean you buy the product. You might entertain the audience for that short while, but that does not make it even close to that particualr audience thinking about actually buying that crap. If I don't like the product, no matter how much I love the ad, I wouldn't buy it. Would you? Well, you should also consider the mentality of the person. Football-lovers don't buy the new Adidas clits because of Messi. They buy it because it is good. Of course they want to wear the same football shoes as Messi, but if it wasn't really good in its performance enhancement, they wouldn't buy it.
So my central argument is that neither one - thinking or feeling - of the psychology of advertising really encourages the consumer to purchase the product. It is all about the product. If the product is good, they will buy it. If the product is bad, they won't. :)    

TV Is Good for You?

TV is good, at least for rural women, because it makes a suitable substitute for education and can possibly work its "magic" on the powerless women to change their attitudes, especially towards their abusive husbands.

Nooooooooooooooooooo, it's not.
TV is not good whatsoever. Many people tend to acknowledge TV for its educational facet, but they often refuse to mention its consequences.
My brother had to wear glasses since elementary school because he was usually home alone with the sole entertainment of TV. He grew out of it after a few years, but in the beginning he hated wearing the funny-looking ovals around his eyes. However, mom forced him to wear it because if he didn't his eyesight would only grow worse. To describe how much he hated it, he slid it into his pocket as soon as he walked out the front door and put it back on only when he came back home. Of course one day mom caught him and scolded him, making sure he wore it after then.
It's not much of a problem from adolescence because it becomes very common - including some people that want to wear it. Still, it gets troublesome when it comes to rough sports, sleeping (you have to place it somewhere safe), washing, etc. Also, worst of all, you have a bad sight which might cause difficulties in certain circumstances.
Adding to effects on eyesight, TV-watching is also addictive, and possibly results to stupidity. One of my classmates, who only knew about studying before he came across a TV episode called "Chuck," gradually started spending more time watching than studying. After a few weeks, he started downloading every new episode on his laptop and watching it everywhere, every time. He even reached to an extent where he started watching the show in the middle of classes. Long time back when my family still lived in Korea, my mom was also addicted to a Korean drama for which she so strictly sacrificed her two hours every week. Nowadays, I avoid TV - especially the endless dramas - because I know it can get very addicting.
I don't have a scientific support, but I know from experience that staring at the screen of an electronic device for a large amount of time destroys your brain. I went through it. I'm adjusted now. School did get harder as I moved to higher classes, but it is also true that I don't try half as much now as I used to before, because I find it too much for me. I was considered a smart, scholastic kid years back. I excelled in math and science, and never missed A honor roll for seven semesters straight since I first came here. However, now, I don't bother to do homework because it just takes up too much time, I find every single curriculum very challenging, and I can't even concentrate in classes. It was ever since I got my laptop and iPod. I spend most of the time staring at the screen (because now most of the homework are also to be done on computer) that torture my eyes and head. TV is definitely not any better than laptop.
There might be many other bullshit people come up with to excuse themselves for watching the stupifying device, but from my experience/philosophy/logical calculations that take place in my head every single moment, I can, without a second of hesitation and without doubt, say that TV is bad.

FAVORITE SONG

"Rocketeer" by Far East Movement

Challenge 36

238. If your entire memory were wiped out except for one experience, what would you choose to remember?

I would remember writing and posting this, so that I would know that I lost my memory if I do. That’s all I need to know. My family and friends will remind me of everything again. And it’s not like I have ever had a splendid experience in my life that I don’t want to forget. I’d rather instead forget some.

I’m just slightly worried on how to get back the awesome mindset I’m living by at the moment. I would have to learn it all over again. I would have to learn my values and principles all over again. But I believe I’ll do that successfully because I’m just freaking amazing.

Guess what? It’s not like my memory’s ever going to be wiped out with just one experience that I remember. Therefore, I would not like to waste my life detailing on what I would choose to remember. If this would come to use in the future actually and it was something realistic, I would get serious with it and write so much, but it would look silly if I did so when it won’t actually happen. I don’t want to make a fool out of myself, so I will stop here. Period.

Oh snap. ß It’s only 200 words right till there. So I have to write more. I have to write more than 300 words. I mean, by writing all these bullshlaka like “oh snap, it’s only 200 words right till there,” I’m accomplishing more words, and I admit that is sly. And right at this moment as I explain you all these unnecessary stuff I’m accomplishing even more words, but really this is the last blog for holiday so you know how it feels. I just want to finish it quickly. I can’t concentrate. I can’t wait to finish it. And I’m watching a video on Youtube right now so I don’t want to be disturbed.

Anyways, Mr. Plonka, thank you for making my winter-break exciting with this assignment. I mean it.

That’s it. I said I would remember writing this so I could read it if I lose my memory. That’s why I wrote all those “useless” stuff above to remind me who I really am. I wrote this blog to be so like something to have been written by myself to realize who I am by reading this. I’m unique. I’m one and only. I’m the best. I think this will be enough to bring back my dope-ass way of thinking, behaving, and living life. 


The End

Challenge 35

2. Imagine that you have the opportunity to travel back through time. At what point in history would you like to stop and why? (Swarthmore)

I would like to stop whenever in history, when there weren’t as much complication as now in life. More like when there weren’t the concept of frying eggs. When there weren’t sofas, when there weren’t TVs, when there weren’t internet, when there weren’t lights, when there weren’t machines, when there weren’t technology, when there weren’t sophisticated synthetic chemicals, when there weren’t hospitals, when there weren’t car accidents, when there weren’t cars, when there weren’t oil, when there weren’t greed, when there weren’t money, when there weren’t corruption, when there weren’t prices, when there weren’t ego and reputation, when there weren’t what’s good or bad, when there weren’t racism and discrimination, hatred, jealousy, competition, humiliation, lying, cheating, pretending, judging, clothing, trends, traditions, drinking, smoking, trafficking, slave labor,  raping, killing, wars, when there weren’t you; when humans didn’t exist; when the world didn’t exist. I want to go back to the time when the world wasn’t created yet. I want to go to “Nowhen,” like how it would be for “nowhere.”

I want a rest. I want a break from this world. I’m sick of humans. I’m sick of human civilization and industry. Therefore, I’m sick of myself too. I want to just quit. I want to ESC out of this world. Everywhere I turn, there are computers and books. I wish I was able to escape life somehow.

Well, I wouldn’t want to leave some things in life, and I will certainly look back on the few people and things I love. I wouldn't want to leave this world. But that’s why I want to leave it at the same time. More specifically, I want to be able to leave it. After all, this question offers me an imaginary opportunity to travel back through time.

Challenge 34

240. Is it better to give or receive gifts?

It’s better to receive. Much better, in fact. Not because you get something for free, not because you get to go through the exciting process of unwrapping, not because it indicates someone cares about you, not because you get something new, not because giving requires money and time while receiving is easy as nothing, and not because you gain, not lose, but because:

Giving is a great thing. It feels awesome to give something to someone. By now, you should have felt the joy that comes from just simply giving something to another person. It is so satisfying and it makes you so happy to look at the other person appreciate. It is the best thing to do. It feels good, it doesn’t harm anyone, it is rather giving to someone; it shows that you care, it makes others feel good, I mean whatsoever, giving is the greatest and the most joyous thing to possibly do as a human.

So what the hell am I saying? What point am I making? I said receiving is better but because giving is the greatest thing. So how does that make sense? How is receiving better, then? Am I stupid? Am I saying bullshit again? Am I drunk? No. Read ahead to be enlightened with the deep meaning of my statement.

If you are considerate and thoughtful enough, you will realize that since giving is such a great thing, by receiving, you are ultimately blessing the giver with an opportunity to feel the joy of giving! You are helping the giver, by receiving, do something useful in his life. You are actually giving a chance for someone to feel the joys and satisfaction of giving, by receiving. That is just awesome, isn’t it? I want my friends to feel the joy in giving, by being the receiver. I am that considerate. I don’t want to steal the chances for others to be happy and gain good karma, therefore I’m going to receive.

Since giving is such an awesome thing, and you are making the other person go through it when you receive, you are actually being considerate and awesome, and blessing that person. That’s why receiving is better.

Did I make my point? If you have a problem understanding, contact 4444444444444444444120009384758263100242696969696969696969696969696969696969.

Challenge 33

8. What single adjective do you think would be most frequently used to describe you by those who know you best? Briefly explain. (Stanford)

I think most appropriately, it would be my own name. Few people in my school already use it as adjective. I guess the occurrence of this strangeity results from my uniqueness. For example, I heard from my friends that my English teacher described my presentation to be so “<my name>.” (I got a low grade on that presentation) And few of my friends as well started using my name as an adjective to describe my speech, behavior, or writing, whatever.

However, let’s say that doesn’t count because that isn’t an actual word and I’m not revealing it anyways. Still, there are two adjectives left, yet to compete for the glorious usage of the entitlement of my awesomeness. However, none of them are really the “magnificent” or “splendid” words like how they should have been. They are rather humble, in fact overwhelmingly humble that it starts to go out of sensibility to be absolutely understandable that they are actually appropriate for me (and it’s alright as far as you get what I’m trying to say). I’m pretty sure you should be able to guess one of them by now.

The first word is “cocky.” Yeah I admit it. I am cocky. Got a problem? If you do have a problem, you should go solve it yourself because I don’t really care and it doesn’t harm me in any ways. Just like this, it’s fun to be cocky. I can’t help it, which is why I act cocky and people call me cocky. However, I’m at the moment in an inescapable state of mental maturity, due to the harsh reality of the world and depressing times, and my cockiness has been deteriorating ever since my last to last to last birthday and seventy two days after. Recently, I have been in the state of quite a hype that didn’t come from pure adolescence or candy bars, but from the uncomfortable position which I have established by trying to squeeze into the I-can’t-even-fit-in world, and helplessly struggling with its penalties that devastated my mental stability, which ultimately in result, stimulated intentional cocky behaviors which achieved just a small fraction of my past abilities to do so. This type of cocky behaviors are somewhat a way to rebel against life and draw attention from other people to show them that I’m having a hard time with my life with hints of hope that they would actually help me, which of course they won’t because they are busy with their own lives and they don’t give a sh*t. And they just get annoyed. Well-thought attempt, miserable result. Whatever, I’m cocky.

The second word that you all have been waiting for is revealed right after this sentence. “Lazy.” (Crowds cheering) Yes I’ll admit this too. I am a very lazy person. And I blame not the sofas, beds, or TVs, because I’m not lazy in that sense. I don’t usually like sitting at all – I hate sitting down for a long time, believe it or not, I don’t watch TV (unless it is playing in the lounge and I’m extremely encouraged to just take one short glance at the screen, which will  eventually tempt me to stay just until the exciting action scene is over), I don’t play computer games very much (not because I don’t like them; because I suck at them despite being an Asian), and I hate wasting my life sleeping (but I have to I’m just too damn freaking super duper tired). I think I just failed at explaining myself. Anyways, I’m mentally lazy. I can’t draw that will power out of me to do my homework or listen in class. Therefore it’s always only the first quarter that the teachers see me as a good student. After that, I just run out of something. Something I don’t even know. It’s not energy, it’s not concentration, and it’s not brains. It’s something like will power but not quite. I just don’t want to do it, I don’t like doing it, and I don’t see the point. I feel hopeless with my entire life at the end of the semester. That’s about it. And people would interpret that as being “lazy” because that’s what they see.

Article 4 (winter break)

Watching wildlife in Nepal By Trent Holden

Published: January 19, 2012 Accessed: January 19, 2012

Nepal has maintained some great wildlife till now -animals like tigers, elephants, monkeys, rhinos, bears, deer, crocodiles, leopards, river dolphins, and 867 species of birds can be seen just within Terai plains. Nepal's most popular national park is Chitwan National Park, and you can have really exciting adventure with the nature and animals in national parks. You can do the same animal-spotting trip you would do in Africa in Nepal, if you just replace lions with tigers. On of the most majestic Royal Bengal tiger is the hardest to spot. In Nepal, you can also see spotted leopards, greater one-horned rhinos, wild elephants, arna (endangered species of long-horned wild buffalo), and "the most famous" snow leopards that can be seen not in jungles but in the Himalayas along with red pandas, mountain goats, blue sheep, and yaks.

This article is quite like the one we did in journalism class for activity week. It just talks about the Nepali wildlife. Well, first of all, I just looked at the picture of rhinoceroses and clicked on it because I thought it was about their extinction. However, it wasn't.
Just to let you know, the reason I was so concerned was because rhinoceros used to be my favorite animal. I loved it. It is so big, cute, gray, and hard with really small eyes. Now, unfortunately, it changed to sloth. I always knew this animal but never got to know about its name until recently. And it's my favorite animal because it looks damn chilled out. Have you ever looked at its face? Look at its face for your face's sake! It looks like it doesn't give a shit about life. It's just so chill. Unlike you. You just care too much. I'll tell you one thing? One day you die whatsoever. So why so fussy about everything? Doesn't even matter anymore when you die. Y U NO CHILL? I swear chill the fck out, man!! It's alright. Really.
What the hell? It's so funny how you guys are so "oh my gosh" about every single fcking thing in life. Whatever, man.

Vocabs

Pristine

a. Bardia National Park is much more remote and also more pristine. 

b. adj. - belonging to the earliest period or state : original / not spoiled, corrupted, or polluted : pure. Latin pristinus; akin to Latin prior. First use: 1534
c. Woodstock students, including myself, are pristine only individually. In school as a group, we act all different, because we can't survive it if we stay pristine - which is a reason why some really innocent students and teachers don't get along with our community.

Insurgency
a. While poaching took its toll on animal numbers during the decade-long Maoist insurgency, the latest counts show numbers to be on the incline.
b. noun. - a quality or state of being insurgent; rising in opposition to civil authority or established leadership : rebellious. A condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as belligerency.
c. I must admit I was pretty insurgent to not have submitted a whole essay but guess what? That was the very purpose.

Foliage
a. The density of their habitat combined with the foliage’s orange-brown hues keep these notoriously shy cats well camouflaged.
b. noun. - a representation of leaves, flowers, and branches for architectural ornamentation; the aggregate of leaves of one or more plants; a cluster of leaves, flowers, and branches. Middle French fuellage, from foille leaf. First use: 1598
c. the thick green foliage that outlines the hills around our school.

Article 3 (winter break)

Orange juice prices hit record

Published: January 11, 2012 Accessed: January 11, 2012

Recently, the price of orange juice has risen to its peak. This was due to problems found in the quality of the products in places where orange juice production was the largest. In shipments from Brazil, illegal substance such as carbendazim was found. Brazil has the highest orange juice production of 1,440,000 tonnes. In US, where the production is second highest, the cold weather of Florida has affected trees and fruits, leaving the mainly concentrated area for orange juice production in damage. Such incidents can lead the relatively small market for orange juice in dramatic price rise.

I got my OJ. I love Orange Juice. Or more correctly, orange juice. It is great. In fact, it's the best!!! It is the awesomest human invention in history. No, it's not wine or beer or champagne, or even cigarettes. It's orange juice. It's healthy and orangey.
Orange juice is juice of orange, sometimes with pulp. Its purpose is to quench thirst, hunger, metabolism, or any desire of fruit or liquid, and provide everyone with the satisfying moments of that fruity feeling. It also makes a great breakfast in places like my school where you can't get time to eat breakfast, which is said to be the most important meal of the day. It is also the best substitute for snacks in those harsh times when the school so carelessly and heartlessly tosses us a box of cold and soggy sponge cake.
BTW FYI, I'm talking about Minute Maid Pulpy Orange or Tropicana 100% orange juice. Not Real orange juice. Real orange juice is fake. The company Real, not literally "real," you fool. That's not even orange juice. It is water with freaking truckload of sugar nicely dissolved and some orange coloring. Orange coloring is orange but it is not the orange. The orange we are talking about is the fruit orange. Both are orange and both are "same same" but "different" (quote from Kauti's t-shirt). Now this is called mindf*ck.
Anyways, I'm going to still drink orange juice no matter what, even if the price goes up painfully high.

Article 2 (winter break)

Indian Dalit icon Mayawati's statues ordered covered up

Published: January 9, 2012 Accessed: January 9, 2012

Officials in Uttar Pradesh, India, have given an order to cover all the statues and stone elephant figures that Mayawati, Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh has built. She is well-known for erecting her own statues and other "Dalit" icons'. However the Election Commission suggests that the statues remain covered until the end of assembly polls as it might sway voters. Her many statues and stone elephants were ordered to be covered by Wednesday evening. Some are busy trying to cover them up while people on Mayawati's side argue that the order is one-sided and against natural justice. Critics use terms such as "self-glorification" and "shameful," while Mayawati accuses them for conspiracy. Basically, there is a dispute between these two controversial sides over the case of covering up statues during election time. However, elections rules restrict images of chief ministers ahead of elections.

Living in Lucknow where I can actually see Mayawati's statues, stone elephants, and parks, I clicked on this article without hesitation. Mayawati's popular and shameful statues that they mention on this world-famous website, is a common sight for me. Isn't that amazing! Hahaha. Not really. It is something familiar so I was interested to read further on this article. And this article is certainly funny like any other happenings in India. People trying to cover statues. What the hell? Sounds funny to me. And who builds statues of oneself? That also while he/she is alive? And they freaking  ran out of sheets to cover the statues! Lol. This article is so like what would happen in Uttar Pradesh. Obviously.
India is no-doubt a fantastic country.


Vocabulary

Magistrate
a. Lucknow district magistrate Anil Sagar said on Sunday.
b. noun - an official entrusted with administration of the laws. Middle English magestrat, from Latin magistratus magistracy, magistrate, from magistr-, magister master, political superior. First use: 14th century
c. How will I possibly relate woodstock to magistrate?

Posthumous
a. Statues of political leaders are generally put up posthumously, but Ms Mayawati says that belief is outdated.
b. adj. - following or occurring after death. Latin posthumus, alteration of postumus late born, posthumous, from superl. of posterus coming after. First use: 1619
c. I think my dance club will only get a posthumous recognition.

Commission
a. Huge numbers of statues commissioned by Ms Mayawati can be seen in the state capital, Lucknow, and other towns and cities of Uttar Pradesh.
b. noun - a formal written warrant granting the power to perform various acts or duties, an authorization or command to act in a prescribed manner, authority to act for. Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin commission-, commissio act of bringing together, from committere. First use: 14th century
verb - to furnish with a commission, to appoint or assign to a task. First use: circa 1661
c. I was commissioned to decorate for JSB by the seniors.